2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. On June 29, 2016, C: (a) on June 201, with respect to promissory notes in Gyeonggi-do (hereinafter “instant promissory notes”), a notary public drafted and issued with No. 336 of the law firm reputation certificate as to the Defendant’s face value of KRW 50 million; (b) the addressee; (c) the date of issuance; June 30, 201; (d) the date of payment; and (e) June 30, 2016; and (e) the place of payment; and (e) the place of payment.

B. On the basis of the notarial deed of the Promissory Notes, the Defendant received dividends of KRW 7,416,122 in the distribution procedure of the Ku Government District Court B on February 23, 2017, and the Plaintiff raised an objection against the dividend amount of the Defendant’s EXE on the same day.

[Grounds for recognition] The plaintiff asserted that Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and Eul evidence Nos. 1 and the purport of the whole pleadings, and that the plaintiff's assertion of the purport of the whole pleadings, and that the plaintiff issue the Promissory Notes of this case with a face value of KRW 50 million to the defendant without borrowing money from the defendant. The defendant received dividends of KRW 7,416,122 in the distribution procedure based on the notarial deed of this case. Thus, the distribution schedule should be revised as stated in the purport of the claim.

On the other hand, the burden of proof as to the grounds for objection against distribution in a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution is in accordance with the principle of distribution of the burden of proof in general civil procedure. Thus, in case where the plaintiff claims that the defendant's claims are false claims, the plaintiff is responsible to prove the facts constituting such grounds. In light of the respective descriptions of evidence Nos. 2 through 8, it is insufficient to recognize the plaintiff's assertion only by the descriptions of evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and there is no other evidence to

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.